Estimating the Effect of Disclosure of Patient Safety Incidents in Diagnosis-Related Patient Safety Incidents: A Cross-sectional Study Using Hypothetical Cases.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-09 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001256
Noor Afif Mahmudah, Dasom Im, Minsu Ock
{"title":"Estimating the Effect of Disclosure of Patient Safety Incidents in Diagnosis-Related Patient Safety Incidents: A Cross-sectional Study Using Hypothetical Cases.","authors":"Noor Afif Mahmudah, Dasom Im, Minsu Ock","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSIs) is a strategic measure to reduce the problems of patient safety incidents (PSIs). However, there are currently limited studies on the effects of DPSIs on resolving diagnosis-related PSIs. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the effects of DPSIs using hypothetical cases, particularly in diagnosis-related PSIs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey using 2 hypothetical cases of diagnosis-related PSIs was conducted in 5 districts of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Korea, from March 18 to 21, 2021. The survey used a multistage stratified quota sampling method to recruit participants. Multiple logistic regression and linear regression analyses were performed to determine the effectiveness of DPSIs in hypothetical cases. The outcomes were the judgment of a situation as a medical error, willingness to revisit and recommend the hypothetical physician, intention to file a medical lawsuit and commence criminal proceedings against the physicians, trust score of the involved physicians, and expected amount of compensation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 620 respondents, recruited based on age, sex, and region, completed the survey. The mean age was 47.6 (standard deviation, ±15.1) years. Multiple logistic regression showed that DPSIs significantly decreased the judgment of a situation as a medical error (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.79), intention to file a lawsuit (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.66), and commence criminal proceedings (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.55). It also increased the willingness to revisit (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.37-4.55) and recommend the physician (OR, 8.21; 95% CI, 4.05-16.66). Meanwhile, the multiple linear regression demonstrated that DPSIs had a significantly positive association with the trust score of the physician (unstandardized coefficient, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41) and a significantly negative association with the expected amount of compensation (unstandardized coefficient, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.06).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DPSIs reduces the possibility of judging the hypothetical case as a medical error, increases the willingness to revisit and recommend the physician involved in the case, and decreases the intent to file a lawsuit and commence a criminal proceeding. Although this study implemented hypothetical cases, the results are expected to serve as empirical evidence to apply DPSIs extensively in the clinical field.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001256","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSIs) is a strategic measure to reduce the problems of patient safety incidents (PSIs). However, there are currently limited studies on the effects of DPSIs on resolving diagnosis-related PSIs. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the effects of DPSIs using hypothetical cases, particularly in diagnosis-related PSIs.

Methods: A survey using 2 hypothetical cases of diagnosis-related PSIs was conducted in 5 districts of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Korea, from March 18 to 21, 2021. The survey used a multistage stratified quota sampling method to recruit participants. Multiple logistic regression and linear regression analyses were performed to determine the effectiveness of DPSIs in hypothetical cases. The outcomes were the judgment of a situation as a medical error, willingness to revisit and recommend the hypothetical physician, intention to file a medical lawsuit and commence criminal proceedings against the physicians, trust score of the involved physicians, and expected amount of compensation.

Results: In total, 620 respondents, recruited based on age, sex, and region, completed the survey. The mean age was 47.6 (standard deviation, ±15.1) years. Multiple logistic regression showed that DPSIs significantly decreased the judgment of a situation as a medical error (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.79), intention to file a lawsuit (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.66), and commence criminal proceedings (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.55). It also increased the willingness to revisit (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.37-4.55) and recommend the physician (OR, 8.21; 95% CI, 4.05-16.66). Meanwhile, the multiple linear regression demonstrated that DPSIs had a significantly positive association with the trust score of the physician (unstandardized coefficient, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41) and a significantly negative association with the expected amount of compensation (unstandardized coefficient, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.06).

Conclusions: DPSIs reduces the possibility of judging the hypothetical case as a medical error, increases the willingness to revisit and recommend the physician involved in the case, and decreases the intent to file a lawsuit and commence a criminal proceeding. Although this study implemented hypothetical cases, the results are expected to serve as empirical evidence to apply DPSIs extensively in the clinical field.

估算与诊断相关的患者安全事件中披露患者安全事件的影响:使用假设病例的横断面研究。
背景:披露患者安全事件(DPSIs)是减少患者安全事件(PSIs)问题的一项战略性措施。然而,目前有关披露患者安全事件对解决与诊断相关的患者安全事件的影响的研究十分有限。因此,本研究旨在利用假设病例估算 DPSIs 的效果,尤其是在与诊断相关的 PSIs 方面:方法:2021 年 3 月 18 日至 21 日,在韩国蔚山广域市的 5 个地区使用 2 个与诊断相关的 PSI 假设病例进行了调查。调查采用多阶段分层配额抽样法招募参与者。通过多重逻辑回归和线性回归分析,确定了在假设情况下 DPSIs 的有效性。分析结果包括对医疗事故的判断、重新审视和推荐假设医生的意愿、对医生提起医疗诉讼和刑事诉讼的意向、对涉案医生的信任度以及预期赔偿金额:共有 620 名根据年龄、性别和地区招募的受访者完成了调查。平均年龄为 47.6 岁(标准差为 ±15.1)。多元逻辑回归结果显示,DPSIs 能显著降低对医疗事故的判断(赔率比 [OR],0.44;95% 置信区间 [CI],0.24-0.79)、提起诉讼的意愿(赔率比 [OR],0.53;95% 置信区间 [CI],0.42-0.66)和启动刑事诉讼的意愿(赔率比 [OR],0.43;95% 置信区间 [CI],0.34-0.55)。它还增加了再次就诊的意愿(OR,3.28;95% CI,2.37-4.55)和推荐医生的意愿(OR,8.21;95% CI,4.05-16.66)。同时,多元线性回归结果表明,DPSIs 与医生的信任度评分呈显著正相关(非标准化系数,1.22;95% CI,1.03-1.41),与预期赔偿金额呈显著负相关(非标准化系数,-0.18;95% CI,-0.29--0.06):DPSIs降低了将假设病例判定为医疗事故的可能性,增加了重新审视和推荐涉案医生的意愿,降低了提起诉讼和启动刑事诉讼的意向。虽然本研究采用的是假设病例,但其结果有望成为在临床领域广泛应用 DPSIs 的实证证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信